Well, I wouldn’t hit anybody over it, but if I am around people that do such a thing I ask them to stop. I can live with swearing (I indulge myself from time to time), but not invoking God while doing it.

We sin by commission and ommission, ignoring it and thereby tacitly approving it is sinful in my mind.

So throwing him in jail solves the problem? He's a fundamental Christian upset at taking the Lord's name in vain (one of the ten commandment, I believe). How can you defend a person who verbally attacks the religious beliefs of another in his own home?

Is not her assault upon his eardrums a crime too? Her’s was the first action, his a reaction and he’s in jail for battery. How about we split the difference and send her to jail too for assault? That would seem fair to me, as both were breaking the law.

No I am not. But I don't like zero tolerance and the insanity that goes along with jailing people in this day and age. No marks on her. Look, if she had bruises or lacerations, sure, send the puke to jail.

In this case, the legal systems should be able to determine that the wife assaulted the man's faith and his eardrums, he reacted poorly. To me, she's as guily as the husband, maybe more so because she started it with her illegal assault.

"So throwing him in jail solves the problem? He's a fundamental Christian upset at taking the Lord's name in vain (one of the ten commandment, I believe). How can you defend a person who verbally attacks the religious beliefs of another in his own home? "

It's easy to defend her. It's against the law to assault another person including your wife. It's not against the law to take the Lord's name in vain. Instead we have something called freedom of speech.

Exceptions are made for corporal punishment of children, but even then there are limits and grey areas where you can be accused of child abuse.

Taking the Lord's name in vain is not an attack on anyone's religious belief. It IS a stupid thing to do. When the Creator of the universe tells you not to take his name in vain, and you do it anyway, it's just not the wisest thing you can do.

And while it can cause offense, in that if you love the Lord, you don't want to hear people disrespect Him. Words should never result in physical assault. If the words are libel or harassment there are criminal and civil legal processes that can be employed.

If it's done by your spouse, it's your fault, because you married her. The best you can do is gently reprimand and encourage and model proper behavior.

Arguing that he is justified in assaulting her because he was offended is the same flawed logic that Muslims use to kill Christians and even their own children.

No absolutely not. Saying something offensive is hardly an assault. You can't have a civilized society if every time someone hears something offensive they have the right to physically assault someone.

The problem with limiting offensive speech is where do you draw the line and who gets to draw that line.

Is Al Gore justified in physically attacking us if we don't believe in Global Warming? Are we justified in attacking him because we find his BS offensive? No, in neither case.

Muslims teaching that Jesus was not the Son of God but just a prophet who deceived people about his death is offensive to Christians. Does that justify attacks on Muslims? Muslims are offended when Christians say Mohammed wasn't a real prophet. Muslims believe they are justified in attacking Christians over the matter. But theirs is a barbaric society with no tolerance for difference of opinions. Hindus preach something different that is offensive to both. Mormons teach something similar to Muslims. Can Mormons attack Muslims for saying their Mormon prophet wasn't a real prophet?

Civilized society has different opinions. Deal with it.

Christianity has progressed not by physical attacks on it's dissenters, but by winning people over through their hearts and minds. Very few Christians would say a man has a right to assault his wife over taking the Lord's name in vain or saying anything else offensive.

Youre kidding, right? You arent really as stupid as you seem, are you?

Well Rifleman, I'll admit that I started out kidding around but as I'm looking at this, I'm wonder where the Common Sense is.

Jailing every man for battery on his wife is zero tolerance, like a prison or the TSA for that matter.

Common sense shows me this guy got angry when his wife took the Lord's name in vain, a violation of his religious belief. She upset him with her verbal assault and he *reacted* by slapping her "upside the head". No marks but under zero tolerance, the guy goes to jail for battery. Who benefits? Not the wife nor the husband. The court system and the jail. There's revenue in them thar slaps upside the head.

NO BODY on this thread (cept one) sees the infringement of the wife on the husband's rights. We have been programed by the justice system to accept the man's inferior role because there's money to be made in the courts, in the jailing and in the divorce proceeding that could follow.

The current legal procedure is really more pathetic than my little exercise.

"There are thousands of religious fundamentalists who would kill you for saying something offensive about their religion. "

True and almost all of them are Muslim. But that doesn't make their actions or response righteous. Is something automatically moral because thousands of people do it? I guess homosexuals and adulterers and thieves and cannibals aren't doing anything wrong because there are thousands of people who have done the same thing.

I'm not really interested in your responses because you appear not a reasonable man. You appear, to me, to want to force your world-view upon me rather than convince me of your merit. Also, you have a pocketful of red-herring.

Stop speaking to me until you have something valid and convincing, please.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.